66 - 3bet Pot OOP

Imo it is important to protect equity with so low pair, so bet is imo ok. Turn you will fold on all overcards because some of your overcards will improve so you dont have to defend 66, and on so blank cards very few of your hands improve, but also villian hands dont improve, which means it should be marginal +EV to call turn and fold most rivers. Also villian is likely checking down some worse hands.

Yeah this is exactly the reasoning why I played the hand the way I played it.

Hi,

pre flop fine to 3bet this

Flop cbetting this board with a high frequency looks good. x/c it's very unconfortable with our hand and we actually are doing okayish against a range that calls our cbet (and of course, EV from making villain fold equity)

Turn I think I'd x/f 66, we still have some EV when villain checks down AJ/AQ, I don't think our hand plays well against villain's betting range, I would x/c turn with some of our weaker Tx. And we could x/c 66 turn on a 3 or 5.

Imo if we fold on blank turn it means that we didnt have enoug equity to value bet flop, meaning that it was bluff on flop with 2 outs. So in that case i would rather check flop. He might check down AJ, AQ, but he might bet for protection. I am usually betting it for protection on turn, unless villian cr agro or defends too much. Still it is likely that he checks down at least some % of combos, but imo the EV of a hand is still similar to bluffing flop with e.g KQ and checking down turn.

I disagree, but if we think villain is betting AQ/AJ then x/c turn looks a lot better. Or if villain is float happy.

What does the turn call decision have to do with villian betting/checking AJ, AQ? Do you in case that villian checks AJ, AQ on turn, consider that villian is betting turn value heavy? If villian bets turn balanced, then 66 should be easy call on turn. But if we have reason to beleive that villian is value heavy, then off course easy fold.

If you disagree, I would like to see your arguments why you disagree, because the topic about playing weak pairs OOP is very complex, and I dont have a general rule which is aplicable for most spots, whereas for most other hand categories it is easy to have general rule).

I'm not too sure about what I'm gonna say, so take it with a grain of salt.

Consider instead we have a hand like Kh4h. On the flop I think we agree betting flop is best, we make villain fold 25% equity hands and we have around 5 outs when we are behind, x/calling just give too many free equity to villain folding range. On the turn with that hand we could x/c, it's certaintely better than 66, but I would still think it's still a bit too weak to x/c so I would continue to "semi-bluff", we still make villain fold some equity (some AJ/AQ and floats, and we still have some outs when behind).

Now 66 for me it feels like a problem, because I don't feel good about either of those options on turn, usually a hand that goes x/c should be stronger than the one going for "cbet bluff", but 66 doesn't seem like even strong enough to bet again on turn (since it only has 2 outs to improve). So I think we are left without good options. Maybe the problem is in our flop play, but again 66 x/c flop seems a bit too weak for that and the board favours the 3bettor so I would imagine we should cbet a lot and then 66 should be okay to cbet. I might be wrong on this.

I agree on K4. 66 also i agree that both options are bad. I said, on turn we would have very marginal call, so it is close to your opinion it is too weak to call.
So if all options are bad on turn on blank, then it is likely flop mistake. Imo if flop cc is too weak then probably the best is to cf flop. Imo it is also good to check some weak SD on flop, to make villians AX have less SD value, and to be able to thin value bet turn after flop goes check.

Maybe it is preflop mistake to 3bet so unplayable hand and play big pot oop?

Yep, low PPs are tough to play in 3bp, specially OOP. x/f flop makes some sense. Actually I tend to fold pre flop with 66 in this spot and 3bet 77+.

77, 88 is having similar playability, it is most of the time underpair, and hard to play. Isnt it better to also fold that and rather 3bet some suited gappers?

Originally posted by GingerKid
77, 88 is having similar playability, it is most of the time underpair, and hard to play. Isnt it better to also fold that and rather 3bet some suited gappers?

Similar playability but more equity vs villain's calling range. You can win at showdown with 88, but not with 78s. This equity realization discussions are very tricky, very though to grasp the real effects in different scenarios.

Yeah it has decent equity, but I thought equity preflop is only important if it is high or very low, and if it is around 40-60% then it doesnt matter, but playability matters?

Imo the main point is, on most boards it is totally unplayable, and it will be mostly cf, and on lower boards which occure rarely we have very bad bluff catcher mostly with no blocker effect and playing big pot oop. Somehow it doesnt make sense to me to 3bet hands that are not clear value OOP.

But you still have some EV when you x/f PPs on flop, we will win sometimes at showdown, that is much more uncommon when you x/f SCs. And you can value/protection bet some boards with 77-88. I would not fold 88 SB vs BU.